A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ERROR ANALYSIS IN WRITING NARRATIVE TEXTS MADE BY JUNIOR, SENIOR A Comparative Study of Error Analysis in Writing Narrative Texts Made by Junior, Senior and University Students.

i   

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ERROR ANALYSIS IN

WRITING NARRATIVE TEXTS MADE BY JUNIOR, SENIOR

AND UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

THESIS

Submitted

as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for Getting Master Degree of English Language Education

By

DWI AGUNG KURNIAWAN

S200140051

POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM OF LANGUAGE STUDY

MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA

APPROVAL

OF

THESIS

FOR

SUBMISSION

A

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ERROR

ANALYSIS

IN

WRITING

NARRATIVE

TEXTS MADE

BY

JUNIOR,

SENIOR

AND

UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

submitted bY

DWI

AGUNG

KURNIAWAN

has beell examined for all revisions and

co

ections reconmcnded

by the board ofexaminers on April 25

''.2016

and is cefiified to be accepted for submission

THE EXAMINER BOARD

Fauziati, M.Hum.

Nray :11,.-zQt 0...

tll

Note AdYisor

I

Prof.Dr. Endang Fauziati,M.Hum,

lectuer

of Magister Lalguage Study Post Graduate Program Muhainrndiyah University of Surakada

Official Note on

Dwi

Agung Kumiawan's Thesis

Dear,

I{aving read, examined, co[ected and necessary revised toward the thesis

of

Name

Fccus on

Title

StudentNumber

:5200140051

Study

Program

: English Language Study

C-+w

\,/r

-Dwi Agung Kumiawan

Linguistics

: -4. Comparative Error Analysis In

Writing

Narrative

Texts Made

By

lunior,

Senior

And

University Students

I

agree that the thesis is to be examiled by the board ofexaminer iD the Magister ofLanguage Study Post Graduate Prognm of Muhammadiyah

University of Surakarta

Surakart4

April 25n,

2016

Note

Advisor

II

Dr. D\ai HaryanIi. M,Hum.. lecturer

of

Magisler Language Study Post Graduate Progam Muhammdiyah

Ur

versity

ofsumka

a

Official Note on

Dwi

Agung Kumiawan's Thesis

Dear,

Havi[g

read, examined, corrected and llecessary rcvised towaqd the thesis

of

Name

Student Nurnber

Study Program

Focus

o[

Title

A

Comparative Error Analysis

In

Writing Narrative

Texts Made

By

Junior, Seoior

And

University

Students

I

agree thal the fiesis is to be examined by the board ofexarnine. in the Magister ofLanguage Study Post Graduate Program ofMuhammadiyah

University of Sumkada

Surakarta,

April

25rr', 20 I 6

K

Dwi

Agung Kumiawan

s200140051

English Language Study

Linguistics

I

am the writer of this thesis,

PRONOUNCEMENT

Dwi Agung Kumiawan

s200140051

Magister of Laoguage Study

Linguistics

Name

NIM

Program

Focus on

Title

A

COMPARATIVE ERROR ANALYSIS

IN

WRITING

NARRATI\'E

TEXTS

MADE

BY

JUNIO&

SEMOR AND

I]M!'ERSITY

STI-IDENTS

I

certify

that

this

thesis

is

certainly

my

own and completely responsible

for

its

contant. Citation from other

wdte$

have been conducted accordingly. When there

is an

iodicatior

that this is a kind

of

plagiarism,

I

will

accept the cancellation

of

my master degree given by Muhammadiyah University of Suakarta.

Dwi

Agung Kumiawan

s200140051

vi   

MOTTO

Teachers open the door, but we must enter by ourself.

Increase in wisdom, in stature and in favour with god and people.

Enjoy life today, Yesterday is gone and Tomorrow may never come.

Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take but by the moments that take our breath away

Winners never quit and Quitters never win

vii   

DEDICATION

With the deep profound love, this research is devoted to:

1. My beloved parents, Mrs. Rumatiningsih and Mr. Ustopo, SP.

2. My beloved wife, Adistia Marisa, S.Pd.SD.

3. My beloved twin daughters, Jihana Ruwaidatul Hasna and Jihani Ruwaidatul

Husna.

4. My beloved older sister, Puspitasari Purwoningsih

viii   

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Assalamu’alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarokatuh

Alhamdulillahirabbil’alamin, first of all, the writer would like to express his

deepest gratitude to Allah SWT who has given guidance and ability so that the

writer accomplish writing this research paper entitled “A COMPARATIVE

STUDY OF ERROR ANALYSIS IN WRITING NARRATIVE TEXTS

MADE BY JUNIOR, SENIOR AND UNIVERSITY STUDENTS”. Secondly,

he would like to the real revolutionary, Muhammad SAW who had opened and

broken the jahiliyah (darkness) period. However, this success would not also

be achieved without the help of many individuals and institutions. Thus, on this

occasion, the writer express the gratitude to:

(1) Prof.Dr. Khudzaifah Dimyati, SH, M. Hum, the Director of Muhammadiyah

University of Surakarta,

(2) Prof. Dr. Markhammah, M.Hum, the Head of Post Graduate program of

Language Study,

(3) Prof. Dr. Endang Fauziati,M.Hum and Dr. Dwi Haryanti,M.Hum as advisors

of this thesis who have helped to guide and advice the researcher writing

process from the beginning until the end,

(4) Susanto, S.Pd, M.Hum as the Head of English Department of Pekalongan

University. Wiwik S.Pd and Chandra Pebruarto, S.Pd as English teachers of

SMA N 1 Kajen and SMP N 1 Kajen Pekalongan. They help the researcher

when he conducted the research,

(5) All English Friends in MPB Class A, especially Mr. Jimmy Cromico, S.Pd.

M.Pd and Mr. Eko Mulyono, S.Pd. M.Pd. They always motivate the writer

during the writing process from the beginning until the end, and

(6) All students of English Department of Pekalongan University, SMP N 1

Kajen and SMA N 1 Kajen Pekalongan co-operated in data collection and it

The researcher realized that this research paper has some mistakes and

still

has a lot ofweakness. Theleforc, the rcsearcher would like to thank to all reade6,

ifthey

can give suggestio[ and criticism to make the thesis better.

Wassalarnu'alaik m Waruhmalullahi Vabarukatuh

suakarta, April

25ih 2016

DWI

AGUNG

KURNIAWAN

x   

TABLE OF CONTENT

TITLE . ... i 

APPROVAL PAGE ... ii

NOTE OF ADVISOR 1 ... iii

NOTE OF ADVISOR 2 ... iv

PRONOUNCEMENT ... v

MOTTO ... vi

DEDICATION ... vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... viii 

TABLE OF CONTENT ... x

LIST OF TABLE ... xiv

LIST OF GRAPHIC ... xv

ABSTRACT ... xvi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Study ... 1

B. Limitation of the Study ... 9

C. Problem Statement ... 10

D. Objective of the Study ... 10 

E. Benefit of the Study ... 11 

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Previous Study ... 12

1. Darus and Ching's Study ... 12

xi   

3. Hussain, et.al's Study ... 15

4. Ramli's Study ... 17

5. Al-Khasawneh's Study ... 17

6. Hau Tse's Study ... 19

5. Faisyal's Study ... 20

8. Krishnasamy's Study ... 21

9. Position of the Current Study ... 22

B. Underlying Theory ... 24

1. Error Analysis ... 25 

a. Notion of Error Analysis ... 25

b. Error Description ... 27

c. The Procedure of Error Analysis ... 29

d. Error Identification ... 31

e. The Description or Classification ... 32

f. Causes of Errors ... 39

2. English Text ... 41

a. Notion of Text ... 41

b. Narrative Text ... 42

C. Theoretical Framework ... 44

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD A. Type of The Study ... 47

B. Subjet of The Study ... 50

xii   

E. Data and Data Source ... 50

F. Technique of Collecting The Data ... 51

G. Data Validity ... 52

H. Technique of Analyzing Data ... 52

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION A. Research Finding ... 55

1. Types of Errors Made by Junior, Senior, and University Students ... 55 

a. Lexical Error... 55

b. Syntactical Error... 57

c. Discourse Error ... 68

2. The Frequency of Each Type of Errors Made by Students in Junior, Senior and University Level ... 74

3. The Similarities and Differences of Error Made by Junior, Senior, and University Students ... 84 

4. The Causes of Errors made by Junior, Senior, and University Students . ... 86

B. Discussion ... 95

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION A. Conclusions ... 104

B. Implication ... 107

C. Suggestions ... 110

xiii   

xiv   

LIST OF TABLE

Table 2.1 Error Identification ... 32

Table 4.1 The Comparison of Error Categories of Students in Three

Levels ... 75

Table 4.2 The Comparison of Error Made by Junior, Senior, and

University Students ... 84

Table 4.3 The Error Causes of Junior, Senio, and University

Students ... 91

Table 4.4 The Difference of Previous Finding with Current Finding .. 97

Table 4.5 The Similarity of Between Finding Current with Finding

Previous ... 99

Table 4.6 The Comparative of Current Finding with Underlying

xv   

LIST OF GRAPHIC

Graphic 4.1 Error Causes in Junior Students ... 92

Graphic 4.2 Error Causes of in Senior Students ... 93

xvi   

ABSTRACT

Dwi Agung Kurniawan, S200140051. Post Graduate Thesis. A Comparative Study of Error Analysis in Writing Narrative Texts Made by Junior, Senior and University Students. Graduate Program of Language Studies Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta, 2016.

This research points out the errors analysis in students’ writing and it is aimed to decsribe the types of errors found in the students’ writing result made by Junior, Senior, and University students, to know the frequencies of each type of errors found in the students’ writing result made by Junior, Senior, and University Students, to explain the similarities and differences types of errors found in the students’ writing result made by Junior, Senior, and University students, and to investigate the causes of errors found in the students’ writing result made by Junior, Senior, and University students.

There are three types of errors namely lexical error (22,46%), syntactical error (199,41%), and discourse error (100,37%). These types of errors have 13 categories of errors; 1) spelling; 2) false friend; 3) to be; 4) bound morpheme s/es; 5) verb tense; 6) articles (a,an,the); 7) preposition; 8) to infinitive; 9) modal auxiliary; 10) passive voice; 11) cohesion; 12) coherence; and 13) generic structure. There are eighteen error cases. The researcher found junior students made more errors than senior and university students, there are 91 errors sentences in junior students, whereas senior students have 43 erroneous sentences and university students have 35 erroneous sentences. The similarities of errors found in junior, senior and university students are: Omission of Bound Morpheme‘s/es’ as the Plural Marker, Using Verb 1 for Past Event, Using Incorrect Verb 2, False Friend, Omission Errors in the Form of Preposition, Using Verb 1 after to Infinitive, Using Verb 1 after Modal Auxiliary, and Using Passive Voice Form Incorrectly. While, the differences errors found in junior, senior and university students are: The Use of Copula ‘Be’ Present Tense for Past Event in Junior Students, It does not find in Senior and University students’ composition. The errors such as additional ‘Be’ for Past Event and Omission “Be” for past event that found in Junior and Senior students, but it does not include in university students’ composition. The researcher found error. It is omission Errors in the Form of the Article (a, an, the) in Junior Students but It does not include in Senior and University’s composition.

There are four causes that lead students to errors, they are overgeneralization, incomplete application of rules, false concept hypothesized, and ignorance of rule restrictions. For this case, ignorance of rule restrictions is the most highest cause of error that occured in the students’ writing with the percentage 114,74%. The error occured because the students fail to apply the rule of grammar in target language.

xvii   

Abstrak

Penelitian ini menunjukkan analisis kesalahan dalam tulisan siswa dan ditujukan untuk menggambarkan jenis kesalahan yang ditemukan dalam hasil tulisan yang dibuat oleh siswa SMP, SMA, dan Perguruan Tinggi, untuk mengetahui frekuensi dari setiap jenis kesalahan yang ditemukan dalam hasil tulisan yang dibuat oleh siswa SMP, SMA, dan Perguruan Tinggi, untuk menjelaskan persamaan dan perbedaan jenis kesalahan yang ditemukan dalam hasil tulisan yang dibuat oleh siswa SMP, SMA, dan Perguruan Tinggi, dan untuk menyelidiki penyebab kesalahan yang ditemukan dalam hasil tulisan yang dibuat oleh siswa SMP, SMA dan Perguruan Tinggi.

Ada tiga jenis kesalahan yaitu kesalahan leksikal (22,46%), kesalahan sintaksis (199,41%, dan kesalahan wacana (100,37%). Jenis-jenis kesalahan itu memiliki 13 kategori kesalahan; 1) spelling; 2) false friend; 3) to be; 4) bound morpheme s/es; 5) verb tense; 6) articles (a,an,the); 7) preposition; 8) to infinitive; 9) modal auxiliary; 10) passive voice; 11) cohesion; 12) ceherence; and 13) generic structure. Ada delapan belas kasus kesalahan. Peneliti menemukan siswa SMP membuat lebih banyak kesalahan dari pada siswa SMA dan universitas, ada 91 kesalahan kalimat pada siswa SMP, sedangkan siswa senior memiliki 43 kalimat yang salah dan mahasiswa memiliki 35 kalimat yang salah. Kesamaan dari kesalahan yang ditemukan pada tulisan siswa SMP, SMA dan perguruan tinggi adalah: Omission of Bound Morpheme‘s/es’ as the Plural Marker, Using Verb 1 for Past Event, Using Incorrect Verb 2, False Friend, Omission Errors in the Form of Preposition, Using Verb 1 after to Infinitive, Using Verb 1 after Modal Auxiliary, and Using Passive Voice Form Incorrectly. Sementara, perbedaan kesalahan yang ditemukan di tulisan siswa SMP, SMA dan Perguruan Tinggi adalah: The Use of Copula ‘Be’ Present Tense for Past Event di tulisan siswa SMP, itu tidak ditemukan dalam tulisan siswa SMA dan Perguruan Tinggi. Kesalahan seperti additional ‘Be’ for Past Event dan Omission “Be” for past event yang ditemukan di tulisan siswa SMP dan SMA, tetapi itu tidak masuk dalam tulisan mahasiswa. Peneliti menemukan kesalahan. Pada hal ini, Kesalahan omission Errors in the Form of the Article (a,an,the) ada di tulisan siswa SMP tapi itu tidak masuk dalam tulisan siswa SMA dan Perguruan Tinggi.

Ada empat penyebab yang menyebabkan siswa melakukan kesalahan, mereka adalah overgeneralization, incomplete application of rules, false concept hypothesized, dan ignorance of rule restrictions. Untuk kasus ini, ignorance of rule restrictions adalah penyebab paling tertinggi kesalahan yang terjadi dalam penulisan siswa dengan persentase 114,74%. kesalahan ini terjadi karena siswa gagal untuk menerapkan aturan tata bahasa dalam bahasa target.

Kata Kunci: perbandingan, analisis kesalahan, antarbahasa, tata bahasa, tulisan